Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
PRIVACY AND MEDIA INTRUSION
1. When she appeared before the Committee
on 1 April, the Secretary of State offered some thoughts on the
issues now facing the Press Complaints Commission. The Committee
asked for these to be recorded in a further submission.
2. As the Secretary of State made clear,
and as we stated in our earlier submission, the Government's starting
point is a fundamental belief that a free press is best served
by unfettered self-regulation. The Government has no plans whatsoever
to legislate in this area, or to interfere with the way the PCC
operates. However, there remains considerable scope for the PCC
itself to consider how they might improve the way self-regulation
works.
3. It is clear from the evidence the Committee
has heard that there is a degree of concern in and around the
newspaper industry about the current performance of the PCC. The
system of self-regulation has evolved over time, and several editors
accepted that there is now some need for further evolution. Some
advocated particular proposals for reform.
4. The PCC themselves have told the Committee
they would welcome specific recommendations for improvements.
We believe that there is always scope for improvement to any form
of self-regulation. The Government will not try to tell the industry
what they should change. However, when she appeared before the
Committee, the Secretary of State summarised some of the questions
that have emerged from this inquiry. She said she hoped the PCC
would consider these questions, which were:
(a) Should the PCC be more "pro-active"
in its approach?
At the moment, the Commission's normal practice
is to wait for complaints to be made although, on occasion, they
do intervene of their own volition. Should they be more active
in assessing whether there has been a breach of the Code and act
without being prompted by a complaint? Similarly, should they
assess whether there is likely to be a breach and, where possible,
attempt to pre-empt it? Inherent in this would, of course, be
the need to consider the practicality of monitoring the diverse
and numerous publications that come under their aegis. The Commission
might also want to consider whether there is scope for more pro-active
and greater collaboration between media regulators in issuing
guidance in general circumstances that are likely to be problematic
(door-stepping, for example).
(b) Would the PCC consider independent scrutiny
of its procedures?
We are aware that the PCC's decisions have,
on occasion, been subject to Judicial Review, and that the Courts
have concluded that the PCC has acted properly and in accordance
with their procedures. But the PCC might want to consider whether
there is more they could do to make their processes transparent.
Would a more formalised and regular independent scrutiny of their
procedures be beneficial and, if so, how could it be achieved?
(c) Is there a need to make the appointments
process more transparent?
At the moment, "head-hunters" are
used to find lay members of the Commission, but would there be
more confidence in the Commission if the independence of these
lay members was demonstrated by the appointments process? The
Commission might, for example, want to consider holding open competitions
based on the advertisement of vacancies. The PCC might also want
to look at the way editors are appointed, including the terms
of their appointments—would it be helpful, for example,
to engineer a greater turn around of membership by introducing
a system of fixed term appointments, for instance for up to two
years?
(d) Is the balance of lay members and industry
members right?
Although lay members are the majority, and the
Chairman is always a lay person, there seems to be a perception
that, in some way, editors dominate the PCC. Could this perception
be addressed by adjusting the balance?
(e) What scope is there for the PCC to raise
its profile and become more accessible to the public?
The Commission is already aware of the need
to increase its profile, and it has worked with some particularly
vulnerable groups while seeking to do this. What else could it
do to raise its profile, and make its contact details easily available?
The PCC might want to consider, for example, how many newspapers
already publish contact details, and how this could be increased.
(f) Is there a case for devising an appeals
mechanism that is not only independent of the Government but also
seen to be free of undue industry control?
The PCC's survey shows that 59% of people are
satisfied with how their case was handled by the PCC, and consider
that the decision was fair—even if they were disappointed
by it. However, that leaves 41% who were dissatisfied. Any process
involving an adjudication will leave some people dissatisfied,
but an independent appeals mechanism might well go some way to
securing a higher satisfaction rating and dispel any lingering
suspicions about fairness of the complaints procedure.
(g) Should the PCC make greater use of hearings?
The PCC rely primarily on written representations
when considering complaints. But they might want to consider whether
there would be benefits in making greater use of their hearings
procedures, especially where it is important to establish the
facts of a case.
5. The Secretary of State met Sir Christopher
Meyer, the new Chairman of the PCC, on 7 April. She suggested
to him that the PCC should look carefully at all the questions
she had raised. He has made it clear in public that he wants to
spend some time gathering information and considering the whole
range of suggestions for improved self-regulation.
6. Decisions on how—and whether—to
move forward with any possible reforms are now for the PCC themselves
and not the Government. The current climate and the evidence of
witnesses have identified a number of areas that might see change.
Ultimately the decision on whether to pursue any of these is for
the PCC and the PCC alone. We will not seek to interfere, or to
legislate.
14 April 2003
| 
